1. Review of General Psychology
2002, Vol. 6, No. 2, 139 –152
Copyright 2002 by the Educational Publishing Foundation
1089-2680/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//1089-2680.6.2.139
The 100 Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th Century
Steven J. Haggbloom
Renee Warnick, Jason E. Warnick,
Vinessa K. Jones, Gary L. Yarbrough,
Tenea M. Russell, Chris M. Borecky,
Reagan McGahhey, John L. Powell III,
Jamie Beavers, and Emmanuelle Monte
Western Kentucky University
Arkansas State University
A rank-ordered list was constructed that reports the first 99 of the 100 most eminent
psychologists of the 20th century. Eminence was measured by scores on 3 quantitative
variables and 3 qualitative variables. The quantitative variables were journal citation
frequency, introductory psychology textbook citation frequency, and survey response
frequency. The qualitative variables were National Academy of Sciences membership,
election as American Psychological Association (APA) president or receipt of the APA
Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award, and surname used as an eponym. The
qualitative variables were quantified and combined with the other 3 quantitative
variables to produce a composite score that was then used to construct a rank-ordered
list of the most eminent psychologists of the 20th century.
The discipline of psychology underwent a
remarkable transformation during the 20th century, a transformation that included a shift away
from the European-influenced philosophical
psychology of the late 19th century to the
empirical, research-based, American-dominated
psychology of today (Simonton, 1992). On the
Steven J. Haggbloom, Department of Psychology, Western Kentucky University; Renee Warnick, Jason E. Warnick, Vinessa K. Jones, Gary L. Yarbrough, Tenea M.
Russell, Chris M. Borecky, Reagan McGahhey, John L.
Powell III, Jamie Beavers, and Emmanuelle Monte, Department of Psychology and Counseling, Arkansas State
University.
Renee Warnick is now at the Department of Neuroscience, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario,
Canada; Gary L. Yarbrough is now at the Department of
Psychology, University of Louisville; Tenea M. Russell is
now at the Forrest School of Professional Psychology; Chris
M. Borecky is now at the Department of Psychology, University of Illinois—Chicago.
We thank the following individuals for their assistance
with this project: Amanda L. Bulger, Robyn P. Burch, Jane
C. Cullins, Kyla Emerson, Jason L. Houston, Lindsey K.
Scarborough, Casey C. Schultz, Mariah J. Seydel, and Matthew N. Yount. We also appreciate the insightful comments
on a manuscript draft provided by David Saarnio, Lynn
Howerton, and Dan Perlman.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Steven J. Haggbloom, Department of Psychology, 276 Tate Page Hall, Western Kentucky University, 1
Big Red Way, Bowling Green, Kentucky 42101. E-mail:
steven.haggbloom@wku.edu
eve of the 21st century, the APA Monitor (“A
Century of Psychology,” 1999) published brief
biographical sketches of some of the more eminent contributors to that transformation. Milestones such as a new year, a new decade, or, in
this case, a new century seem inevitably to
prompt such retrospective appraisals of the
most notable events or people of an era. Without question, the psychologists mentioned in the
APA Monitor retrospective qualify as eminent.
Nevertheless, they represent a very small subset
of the substantial number of 20th-century psychologists who might be so regarded. Moreover, such retrospectives tend to omit highly
eminent, and still very productive, contemporary psychologists.
The purpose of the present study was to produce a more inclusive, rank-ordered list of the
100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th
century. To produce any such list is a daunting
task fraught with a variety of difficulties, not the
least of which is to operationalize “eminence.”
Moreover, any procedure for creating such a list
will invite methodological criticism. Because
these difficulties will probably not be addressed
to everyone’s satisfaction, and because our list
is certain to have omitted the names of many
great psychologists for whom one could make a
compelling case for inclusion, we took a cue
from Eugene Garfield (1977) and report only 99
names. Hence, the reader’s best case for a psy-
139

2. 140
HAGGBLOOM ET AL.
chologist who should have made the list just
might be that last, 100th name that we have not
reported.
We think the most eminent list reported here
will be inherently interesting to many psychologists. Beyond that, knowing who is eminent in
a discipline can serve a number of useful purposes. James McKeen Cattell recognized nearly
a century ago that the understanding of both
science and creativity would be advanced by the
study of who is eminent in science and why
(e.g., Cattell, 1910). Exploring the contribution
of psychological variables to scientific behavior, especially exemplary and eminent cases, is
now the province of the psychology of science,
an emerging companion discipline to the more
familiar and well-established disciplines that
study science, such as history of science and
philosophy of science (see Feist & Gorman,
1998, for a detailed overview of the psychology
of science). For example, Simonton (1992),
working from a list of 69 eminent American
psychologists, created a profile of the “typical”
eminent American psychologist. Simonton (2000)
investigated the contribution of 54 eminent psychologists’ methodological and theoretical orientations to the durability of their influence. It is
our hope that the most eminent list reported here
will be a useful starting point for similar studies
in the psychology of science. Our list also has
potential uses for research in the history of
psychology and in the psychology classroom.
Some of those applications are discussed at the
end of this article.
Our procedures, and the resulting most eminent list, differed from those of other studies of
eminence in psychology in some important respects. Foremost among these differences is the
fact that no other study has attempted to compile a rank-ordered list of the most eminent
psychologists that spans the entire 20th century.
Another important difference is that most eminence studies have employed a single measure
of eminence. Eminence, however, is a complex,
multidimensional concept not likely to be well
reflected in any one measure. Therefore, we
used a combination of three quantitative and
three qualitative variables.
The use of multiple criteria to measure eminence should accomplish the equivalent of what
statistician–magician Persi Diaconis (1978)
called the “bundle of sticks” phenomenon in
magic. A magician may perform several varia-
tions on the same trick, each having, like a
single stick, a weak point. The entire performance, however, like a bundle of sticks, is
much stronger than the individual tricks it comprises. To adapt an aphorism from psychology,
the whole is stronger than its parts. The use of
multiple criteria yields a better measure of eminence to the extent that the strength of the
“bundle” of measures compensates for the
weaknesses of its components.
The variables that have been used to measure
eminence in psychology include frequency of
citation in the professional journal literature
(e.g., Endler, Rushton, & Roediger, 1978; Garfield, 1978, 1992; Myers, 1970), frequency of
citation in introduction to psychology textbooks
(e.g., Gorenflo & McConnell, 1991; Kaess &
Bousfield, 1954; Knapp, 1985; Perlman, 1980;
Roeckelein, 1995), and surveys of professional
opinion (e.g., Annin, Boring, & Watson, 1968;
Coan & Zagona, 1962; Korn, Davis, & Davis,
1991). These measures yield quantitative or ordinal-level data that have been used to construct
rank-ordered lists.
Studies of eminence in psychology have also
employed qualitative measures such as whether
a psychologist’s surname has come to be used
as an eponym (i.e., a psychological term such as
Pavlovian conditioning or Skinner box) to represent, for example, a theory, procedure, test, or
apparatus (Roeckelein, 1972, 1996),1 and receipt of awards or other forms of honorary
recognition. The latter include election to membership in the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS), receipt of the American Psychological
Association (APA) Distinguished Scientific
Contributions Award, and election to the APA
presidency (e.g., Over, 1981; Simonton, 1992).
In the present study, we used all six of the
quantitative and qualitative variables just mentioned. Our operational definition of eminence
was a composite score on these variables. What
follows is a description of how each variable
was measured and how scores were combined
to yield a composite index that was then used to
construct a rank-ordered list of the 100 most
eminent psychologists of the 20th century. We
then describe some of the characteristics of our
1
One can also count frequency of eponym usage to
obtain quantitative data from this measure (Roeckelein,
1996).

3. THE 100 MOST EMINENT PSYCHOLOGISTS
list and how it relates to other measures of
eminence in psychology.
The terms psychologist and 20th century also
require definition. For present purposes, psychologist was not defined according to academic degree (e.g., the PhD in psychology,
PsyD, or a comparable degree). Rather, it was
defined in terms of an individual’s contributions
to the discipline of psychology, as indicated by
his or her score on the various measures of
eminence we used. This approach permitted
consideration of individuals who, without question (e.g., Freud and Pavlov), have made very
significant contributions to psychology but who
might be excluded from consideration if an academic degree criterion were used. By 20thcentury psychologist, we simply meant that at
least one of the individual’s published contributions to psychology occurred in the 20th
century.
Journal Citation Frequency
We constructed a list of the 100 psychologists
most frequently cited in the professional psychological journal literature, the journal citation
list (JCL). The JCL was constructed by adding
citation frequencies across four previously published lists. The lists we used (along with time
periods covered and number of names reported)
were published by Myers (1970; 1962 to
1967, 62 names), Endler et al. (1978; 1975, 100
names), Garfield (1978; 1969 to 1977, 100
names), and Garfield (1992; 1986 to 1990, 50
names). The JCL sampled four (mostly) nonoverlapping time periods and combined lists
produced by different methodologies. The methodologies included manual searches (Endler et
al., 1978; Myers, 1970), computerized database
searches (Garfield, 1978, 1992), searches of selected journals deemed “prestigious” (Myers,
1970), searches of all Social Science Citation
Index (SSCI)–indexed psychology journals
(Endler et al., 1978; Garfield, 1978), and a
search of SSCI-indexed psychology journals
that included only those authors who had published at least 10 articles in SSCI-indexed journals during the period covered by the search
(Garfield, 1992). The Garfield (1992) list gives
considerable weight to currently active, contemporary psychologists, whereas the other three
lists give more weight to historically older psy-
141
chologists without necessarily excluding more
contemporary psychologists.
It is our view that the JCL represents a reasonable approach to achieving a degree of balance between an emphasis on historically established authorities and contemporarily active
psychologists. Moreover, the JCL sampled four
somewhat disparate time periods and thus presents a more comprehensive picture of journal
citation frequencies than the individual lists it
comprises. Table 1 presents the first 25 names
on the JCL.2 In this and all of the other tables,
we attempted to identify psychologists the way
they identified themselves in the professional
literature.
Introductory Psychology Textbook
Citation Frequency
We constructed a list of the 102 psychologists
most frequently cited in introductory psychology textbooks, the textbook citation list (TCL).
(The list contained 102 rather than 100 names as
a result of tied ranks at the end of the list.) The
TCL was constructed by adding citation frequencies together for two previously published
lists and a list that we created. The published
lists that we used were those of Perlman (1980)
and Gorenflo and McConnell (1991). Perlman
(1980) listed the 50 psychologists most frequently cited in 10 textbooks with copyright
dates of 1975 to 1978. Gorenflo and McConnell
(1991) listed the 64 psychologists most frequently cited in a sample of 24 textbooks with
copyright dates from 1985 to 1989. We constructed a list of the 100 psychologists most
frequently cited in five textbooks with copyright
dates of 1998 to 2000.3 Our procedure was
essentially that used by Perlman, except that we
did not adjust for self-citations and bibliography
pages. Working from the author indexes, we
determined the number of textbook pages on
which each psychologist was cited. Individuals
not cited in at least four of the five textbooks
were not considered. For the remaining eligi2
The JCL can be seen in its entirety (both rank-ordered
and alphabetical versions) at http://edtech.tph.wku.edu/
ϳshaggblo/jcl.htm.
3
A list of the five textbooks used is available from Steven
J. Haggbloom and on the World Wide Web at http://
edtech.tph.wku.edu/ϳshaggblo/tcl.htm.

4. 142
HAGGBLOOM ET AL.
ble names, citation frequencies were summed
across the textbooks in which they were cited.
The TCL was constructed by summing citation frequencies across our newly created list
and the lists published by Perlman (1980) and
Gorenflo and McConnell (1991). As was the
case with the JCL, the TCL sampled different
time periods and methodologies and represents
a more comprehensive list than the lists it comprises. Table 2 presents the first 25 names on the
TCL.4
Survey
We surveyed, by e-mail, approximately 1,725
members of the American Psychological Society (APS). Working from the APS membership
directory, each of 20 individuals who assisted
on this research project sent the survey to approximately 80 APS members. The appropriate
pages of the directory were divided into 20
Table 1
The 25 Psychologists Most Frequently Cited in the
Professional Psychological Journal Literature
Rank
Name
Citation frequency
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Freud, Sigmund
Piaget, Jean
Eysenck, H. J.
Winer, B. J.
Bandura, Albert
Siegel, S.
Cattell, Raymond B.
Skinner, B. F.
Osgood, Charles E.
Guilford, J. P.
Campbell, Donald T.
Festinger, Leon
Miller, George A.
Bruner, Jerome S.
Cronbach, Lee J.
Erikson, Erik H.
Edwards, A. L.
Rotter, Julian B.
Byrne, Donn
Kagan, Jerome
Wolpe, Joseph
Rosenthal, Robert
Underwood, Benton J.
Paivio, Allan
Rokeach, Milton
13,890
8,821
6,212
6,206
5,831
4,861
4,828
4,339
4,061
4,006
3,969
3,536
3,394
3,279
3,253
3,060
3,007
3,001
2,904
2,901
2,879
2,739
2,686
2,678
2,676
Note. The entire list of the 100 psychologists most frequently cited in the professional journal literature can be
accessed on the World Wide Web at http://edtech.tph.wku.
edu/ϳshaggblo/jcl.htm.
Table 2
The 25 Psychologists Most Frequently Cited in
Introductory Psychology Textbooks
Rank
Name
Citation frequency
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.5
24.5
Freud, Sigmund
Skinner, B. F.
Bandura, Albert
Piaget, Jean
Rogers, Carl
Schachter, Stanley
Harlow, Harry F.
Brown, Roger
Miller, Neal E.
McClelland, D. C.
Erikson, Erik H.
Milgram, Stanley
Seligman, Martin E. P.
Maslow, Abraham
Bower, Gordon H.
Kohlberg, Lawrence
Watson, John B.
Allport, Gordon W.
Festinger, Leon
Loftus, Elizabeth F.
Zajonc, R. B.
Pavlov, Ivan P.
Kagan, Jerome
Sternberg, Robert J.
Mischel, Walter
560
310
303
240
202
200
175
162
154
153
151
146
143
142
138
128
127
124
121
120
118
117
116
114
114
Note. The entire list of 100 psychologists most frequently
cited in introductory psychology textbooks can be accessed
on the World Wide Web at http://edtech.tph.wku.edu/
ϳshaggblo/tcl.htm.
equal segments. The survey was then sent to
every 10th name, or the next available name, for
which an e-mail address was listed. In cases in
which a return message indicated that the e-mail
was not successfully delivered, additional
names were sampled.
Respondents were asked three questions: (a)
“What is your specialization in psychology
(e.g., developmental, social, cognitive, learning)?” (b) “In your opinion, who are the three
greatest psychologists of the 20th century in
your specialization?” and (c) “In your opinion,
who are the greatest psychologists of the 20th
century in the overall field of psychology? (List
as many names as you like in order of importance).” Respondents were informed that
4
The TCL can be seen in its entirety (both rank-ordered
and alphabetical versions) at http://edtech.tph.wku.edu/
ϳshaggblo/tcl.htm.

5. THE 100 MOST EMINENT PSYCHOLOGISTS
“greatest” was intentionally unexplicated to allow for their individual interpretation.
The survey response rate was a disappointing
and inexplicably low 5.6%. Using only the responses to the third question, we constructed a
rank-ordered list of the 117 psychologists most
frequently mentioned, the survey list (SL). (The
list contained 117 rather than 100 names as a
result of tied ranks at the end of the list.) The
ordinal information contained in those responses was not used because not all respondents presented an ordered list, and we doubted
the validity of the ordinal information for especially long lists.
Given the low response rate, is the SL a valid
measure of eminence? We saw no reason to
discount the survey results despite the low response rate. In the first place, the SL has considerable face validity; we think most of the
names on the SL will be quite familiar to most
psychologists, and many of those named will
probably be recognized as eminent. More important, 43 (37%) of the names on the SL are
also on the JCL, and 47 (40%) of the names on
the SL are also on the TCL. The commonality
of names between the SL and the two citation
frequency lists is essentially the same as the 40
(40%) names shared by the JCL and TCL.
Moreover, there was a tendency for the
names on the SL that were also on the JCL and
TCL to be in the same rank order. The 43 names
common to the SL and JCL were assigned ranks
of 1 to 43 based on their ordinal position within
their respective lists. The 47 names common to
the SL and TCL were similarly assigned ranks
from 1 to 47. Spearman rank-order correlation
coefficients revealed significant ( p Ͻ .05) positive correlations between both sets of ranks,
rs(41) ϭ .34 and rs(45) ϭ .47, for names on the
SL that were also on the JCL and TCL, respectively. These correlations were comparable to
the rank-order correlation for the 40 names
common to the JCL and TCL, rs(38) ϭ .40, p Ͻ
.05. Thus, the SL not only identified many of
the same psychologists identified by the JCL
and TCL but tended to identify them in the same
order as well. We also think it is noteworthy
that 20 of the psychologists who made the most
eminent list reported here would have been excluded from consideration under our procedures
had we not used the survey data. As shown
subsequently, 18 of those 20 had scores on
143
either two or all three of the qualitative
variables.
We do not expect the foregoing analyses to
obviate all concerns about the validity of the
SL. We would emphasize, however, that the SL
is not presented as a stand-alone measure of
eminence; rather, it is one of six measures contributing to a composite index. Legitimate concerns about validity could just as well be raised
about the other measures we used, but, as shown
subsequently, the resulting composite index is
quite robust. Table 3 presents the first 26 names
on the SL.5
Comparisons Among the JCL,
TCL, and SL
A master list of 219 psychologists comprised
all of the different names on the JCL, TCL, and
SL. Of these names, only 28 (13%) were common to all three lists. The numbers of names
unique to each list were as follows: JCL, 47
(47% of 100); TCL, 44 (43% of 102); and
SL, 56 (48% of 117). Thus, these three variables
each made substantial, but comparable, contributions to the measurement of eminence. We
found some selected comparisons among the
three lists to be both interesting and instructive
about the differences among the three measures.
Consider the cases of Pavlov, Watson, and
Milgram. All three appear in the top one third of
the TCL (with ranks of 22, 17, and 12, respectively), and all three also appear on the SL (with
ranks of 6.5, 4, and 67, respectively), but none
of them appear on the JCL. Thus, textbook
citation frequency and survey measures of eminence clearly place Pavlov, Watson, and Milgram among the most eminent of 20th-century
psychologists, but they are not among the top
100 psychologists in journal citation frequency
and so, by that measure, are not among the most
eminent.
Pavlov and Watson appear on the TCL but
fail to appear on the JCL for essentially the
same reason. Both men made contributions to
psychology that are of unarguably great historical significance. The study of learning inaugurated by Pavlov, and for which his name is used
5
The SL can be seen in its entirety (both rank-ordered
and alphabetical versions) at http://edtech.tph.wku.edu/
ϳshaggblo/sl.htm.

6. 144
HAGGBLOOM ET AL.
Table 3
The 26 Psychologists Most Frequently Named
in the Survey
Rank
Name
Frequency
1
2
3
4
5
6.5
6.5
8
9.5
9.5
11.5
11.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
17
19
19
19
21
24
24
24
24
24
Skinner, B. F.
Piaget, Jean
Freud, Sigmund
Watson, John B.
Bandura, Albert
James, William
Pavlov, Ivan P.
Lewin, Kurt
Rogers, Carl
Thorndike, Edward
Festinger, Leon
Hebb, D. O.
Allport, Gordon
Hull, Clark
Miller, Neal E.
Tolman, Edward C.
Erikson, Erik H.
Kohler, Wolfgang
¨
Maslow, Abraham
Vygotsky, Lev Semenovich
Ainsworth, Mary D.
Eysenck, H. J.
Luria, Alexander R.
Schachter, Stanley
Simon, Herbert
Sperry, Roger W.
58
33
28
24
23
21
21
17
14
14
13
13
11
11
11
11
10
9
9
9
8
7
7
7
7
7
Note. The entire list of 100 psychologists most frequently
named in the survey can be accessed on the World Wide
Web at http://edtech.tph.wku.edu/ϳshaggblo/sl.htm.
as an eponym, remains a very dynamic and
important part of empirical and theoretical research in contemporary psychology. However,
the terminology and general methodology of
Pavlovian conditioning are so integral to the
nomenclature of the discipline that contemporary researchers would often have little cause to
cite Pavlov in a journal article. Essentially the
same can be said of Watson. One can hardly
overstate the magnitude of the historical significance and continuing pervasive influence of
Watson’s classic 1913 paper expounding the
behaviorist viewpoint. On the other hand, except for historical, philosophical, or methodological articles about behaviorism, most psychologists would probably have little occasion
to cite Watson in a journal article. Because of
their historical significance and continuing influence, however, authors of introductory psychology textbooks can hardly not cite Pavlov
and Watson. Milgram, although not among the
100 most cited in the journal literature, is probably so extensively cited in introductory psychology textbooks primarily because his work
on obedience to authority makes such good
copy (i.e., students find it highly interesting)
and because it had such important implications
for protection of human research participants. In
these and similar cases, the JCL and TCL are
disparate measures of eminence, but used in
conjunction they provide a more balanced
picture.
There are also psychologists identified as
highly eminent by the JCL but not by the TCL.
In some cases, the high frequency of journal
citations is due to authors referencing statistical
procedures, instrumentation, or methodology.
Thus, for example, Winer, Siegel (both statisticians), and Rotter (locus of control instrument)
have ranks of 4, 6, and 18, respectively, on the
JCL but, not surprisingly, do not appear on the
TCL or SL. On the other hand, consider Herb
Simon. Simon’s contributions to psychology are
held in such high regard that he is among the
most frequently cited in the professional journal
literature (a rank of 32.5 on the JCL), and he
was also judged to be among the most eminent
psychologists by respondents to our survey (a
rank of 24 on the SL), yet he is not cited
frequently enough in introduction to psychology textbooks to have made the TCL and is thus
not eminent by that measure.
Why would a Nobel Prize–winning psychologist not be extensively cited in introduction to
psychology textbooks when his work is among
the most highly regarded and cited in the professional literature? Should not introductory
psychology textbooks, for many people the
principal and only exposition of psychology,
present the most highly regarded work the discipline has to offer? That this is largely the case
has been an explicit assumption of previous
analyses of who is cited in introductory psychology textbooks (e.g., Kaess & Bousfield,
1954; Knapp, 1985; Perlman, 1980). However,
as noted by Perlman (1980), introductory psychology textbooks likely often eschew presentation of highly technical and complicated research. Simon’s research on human decision
making very likely falls into that too-technical
category.
One might suspect that a survey would tend
to identify as eminent the same psychologists
whose work is most often cited in journals

7. THE 100 MOST EMINENT PSYCHOLOGISTS
and introduction to psychology textbooks and
whose names are therefore relatively familiar.
Although this may indeed be true to some extent, it is perhaps noteworthy that the SL also
uniquely identified many individuals as eminent; 48% of the names on the SL are unique to
that list. As examples, Tolman, Vygotsky, and
Kohler had ranks on the SL of 14.5, 19, and 19,
¨
respectively, but none of them appeared on either the JCL or the TCL. Thus, these three
psychologists are among the most eminent as
measured by our survey, but not as measured by
journal citations or introductory textbook citations. Their presence in the top 20% of the SL
strongly indicates they merit some consideration for the most eminent list, consideration
that, as stated earlier, would not be forthcoming
without use of the survey measure.
The foregoing, albeit selected, comparisons
among the JCL, TCL, and SL illustrate some of
the limitations inherent in any single-criterion
measure of eminence. Also, they strengthen the
rationale for our multiple-criterion approach.
Qualitative Measures of Eminence
The JCL, TCL, and SL, as described earlier,
are quantitative measures. We also used three
qualitative measures of eminence that were applied to the 219 different names that appear on
the JCL, TCL, and SL. The qualitative variables
we used were whether or not a given psychologist (a) was elected to the NAS; (b) was a
recipient of the APA Distinguished Scientific
Contributions Award or elected APA president
(as of 1999), or both; and (c) has his or her
surname in use as an eponym. We refer to these
qualitative variables as, respectively, NAS,
APA, and EP. We combined APA award and
APA presidency into a single APA variable on
the assumption that, in many cases, the very
scientific contributions that led to receipt of the
award were also instrumental in an individual’s
election as APA president. (In fact, roughly one
quarter [24%] of the psychologists in this study
who received credit on the APA variable served
as APA president and received the Outstanding
Scientific Contributions Award.) Our source for
eponyms was an unpublished list referenced by
Roeckelein (1995) that included eponyms identified by Zusne (1987).
145
Calculation of Composite Scores
Because frequency scores on the JCL, TCL,
and SL were positively skewed, they were
transformed to logarithms. For each list, the
log-transformed scores were then converted to z
scores. The three qualitative variables were converted to a single quantitative variable by assigning each of the 219 names on the master list
a score of 0, 1, 2, or 3 corresponding to the
number of qualitative variables for which an
individual received credit. These scores were
converted to z scores without being subjected to
a logarithmic transformation. For each name,
we then calculated a composite score representing the mean z score across all four variables
(JCL, TCL, SL, and the quantified qualitative
variables).
For names that do not have a score on one or
more of the four variables, calculating a composite score as the mean z score across all four
variables is problematic. These names must be
assigned some score in place of the missing
value(s); otherwise, the composite score will be
inflated rather than reflecting the adverse consequences of not being on a list. The solution
that we used for names not on the JCL or TCL
represents a sort of compromise. In the first
place, we think it is highly unlikely that for
names on the master list that do not appear on
the JCL or TCL, the actual number of citations
is zero. Because the actual number of citations
is somewhere between zero and one less than
the smallest frequency required to make the list,
we replaced missing values with the z score of
the logarithm of the frequency score midway
between those two values. The situation is more
straightforward for names that were not on the
SL or did not receive credit for any of the
qualitative variables. In these cases, the real
frequency was zero. For names not on the SL,
we replaced missing values with the z score for
a logarithmic score of zero, and for names with
no qualitative variable credit, we used the z
score for a frequency score of zero.
The results of these calculations are presented
in Table 4 as a rank-ordered list of the 100 (99
actually presented) most eminent psychologists
of the 20th century. For each name, Table 4 also
shows the rank on each quantitative variable
and the qualitative variables for which credit
was given by indicating the relevant date and
eponym. In cases of multiple eponyms associ-

8. 146
HAGGBLOOM ET AL.
Table 4
The 100 (99 Reported) Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th Century
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Name
Skinner, B. F.
Piaget, Jean
Freud, Sigmund
Bandura, Albert
Festinger, Leon
Rogers, Carl R.
Schachter, Stanley
Miller, Neal E.
Thorndike, Edward
Maslow, A. H.
Allport, Gordon W.
Erikson, Erik H.
Eysenck, H. J.
James, William
McClelland, David C.
Cattell, Raymond B.
Watson, John B.
Lewin, Kurt
Hebb, D. O.
Miller, George A.
Hull, Clark L.
Kagan, Jerome
Jung, C. G.
Pavlov, Ivan P.
Mischel, Walter
Harlow, Harry F.
Guilford, J. P.
Bruner, Jerome S.
Hilgard, Ernest R.
Kohlberg, Lawrence
Seligman, Martin E. P.
Neisser, Ulric
Campbell, Donald T.
Brown, Roger
Zajonc, R. B.
Tulving, Endel
Simon, Herbert A.
Chomsky, Noam
Jones, Edward E.
Osgood, Charles E.
Asch, Solomon E.
Bower, Gordon H.
Kelley, Harold H.
Sperry, Roger W.
Tolman, Edward C.
Milgram, Stanley
Jensen, Arthur R.
Cronbach, Lee J.
Bowlby, John
Kohler, Wolfgang
¨
Wechsler, David
Stevens, S. S.
Wolpe, Joseph
Broadbent, D. E.
Shepard, Roger N.
JCL TCL SL
APA award/
rank rank rank NAS president
8
2
1
5
12
28.5
46
13
40
37
51
16
3
—
34
7
—
47
58
43
73
20
50
—
48
100
10
14
67
39
93
59
11
30
—
32.5
32.5
—
57
9
74
—
72
—
—
—
28.5
15
55
—
49
27
21
41
56
2
4
1
3
19
5
6
9
50
14
18
11
30
29
10
37
17
73.5
—
46
73.5
23
40
22
24.5
7
61
70.5
27
16
13
71
—
8
21
47.5
—
28
44.5
—
31
15
35
64
—
12
56
—
—
—
—
—
43
—
—
1
2
3
5
11.5
9.5
24
14.5
9.5
19
14.5
17
24
6.5
31
31
4
8
11.5
67
14.5
67
39.5
6.5
67
51
—
31
51
97
31
31
67
—
39.5
—
24
39.5
—
97
97
67
—
24
14.5
67
97
—
31
19
39.5
—
—
—
—
1950
1966
—
—
1972
—
1983
1958
1917
—
—
—
—
1906
—
—
—
—
1979
1962
1936
—
—
—
—
1951
1954
—
1948
—
—
1984
1973
1972
—
1988
1953
1972
—
1972
—
1973
1978
1960
1937
—
—
1974
—
1947
—
1946
—
1970
1977
1958/—
1969/—
—/—
1980/1974
1959/—
1956/1947
1969/—
1959/1961
—/1912
—/1968
1964/1939
—/—
—/—
—/1904
1987/—
—/—
—/1915
—/—
1961/1960
1963/1969
—/1936
1987/—
—/—
—/—
1982/—
1960/1958
1964/1950
1962/1965
1967/1949
—/—
—/1998
—/—
1970/1975
—/—
1978/—
1983/—
1969/—
1984/—
1977/—
1960/1963
1967/—
1979/—
1971/—
1971/—
1957/1937
—/—
—/—
1973/1957
1989/—
1956/1959
—/—
1960/—
—/—
1975/—
1976/—
Eponym
Skinnerian
Piagetian
Freudian
Bandura’s social learning theory
Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory
Rogerian therapy
Schachter’s affiliation studies
Thorndike’s puzzle box
Maslow’s hierarchy
Allport A–S reaction study
Erikson’s psychosocial stages
Eysenck personality inventory
James–Lange theory of emotion
Cattell 16 Factor Personality Questionnaire
Watsonian behaviorism
Lewinian psychology
Hebbian
Hullian
Jungian
Pavlovian
Guilford–Martin personnel inventory
Kohlberg stages of moral development
Campbell’s design approach
Zajonc social facilitation
Jones’s correspondent inference theory
Osgood’s transfer surface
Asch situation
Kelley’s attribution theory
Tolman’s purposive behaviorism
Milgram’s obedience studies
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha
Kohler’s prism experiments
¨
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
Stevens’s power law
Broadbent’s filter model
Kruskel–Shepard scaling

9. THE 100 MOST EMINENT PSYCHOLOGISTS
Table 4
147
(continued)
Rank
Name
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72.5
72.5
74.5
74.5
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
88.5
88.5
88.5
88.5
88.5
88.5
93.5
93.5
93.5
93.5
96
97
98
99
Posner, Michael I.
Newcomb, Theodore M.
Loftus, Elizabeth F.
Ekman, Paul
Sternberg, Robert J.
Lashley, Karl S.
Spence, Kenneth
Deutsch, Morton
Rotter, Julian B.
Lorenz, Konrad
Underwood, Benton J.
Adler, Alfred
Rutter, Michael
Luria, Alexander R.
Maccoby, Eleanor E.
Plomin, Robert
Hall, G. Stanley
Terman, Lewis M.
Gibson, Eleanor J.
Meehl, Paul E.
Berkowitz, Leonard
Estes, William K.
Aronson, Eliot
Janis, Irving L.
Lazarus, Richard S.
Cannon, W. Gary
Edwards, A. L.
Vygotsky, Lev Semenovich
Rosenthal, Robert
Rokeach, Milton
Garcia, John
Gibson, James J.
Rumelhart, David
Thurston, L. L.
Washburn, Margarete
Woodworth, Robert
Boring, Edwin G.
Dewey, John
Tversky, Amos
Wundt, Wilhelm
Witkin, Herman A.
Ainsworth, Mary D.
Mowrer, O. Hobart
Freud, Anna
JCL TCL SL
APA award/
rank rank rank NAS president
61
76
—
—
—
—
66
38
18
—
23
—
44
—
68
86
—
—
—
—
42
64
—
—
—
—
17
—
22
25
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
31
—
77
45
—
81.5
20
26
24.5
—
—
—
—
39
—
55
—
—
—
70.5
—
—
—
—
75
—
32
33
34
68
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
97
—
51
97
51
39.5
51
—
—
97
—
67
97
24
67
51
67
67
31
31
—
97
—
—
—
—
—
19
—
—
97
97
97
97
97
97
51
51
51
51
—
21
51
97
1981
1974
—
—
—
1930
1955
—
—
1966
1970
—
—
1968
1993
—
1915
1928
1971
1987
—
1963
—
—
—
1914
—
—
—
—
1983
1967
1991
1938
1931
1921
1932
1910
1985
1909
—
—
—
—
1980/—
1976/1956
—/—
1991/—
—/—
—/1929
1956/—
1987/—
1988/—
—/—
1973/—
—/—
1995/—
—/—
1988/—
—/—
—/1924
—/1923
1968/—
1958/1962
—/—
1962/—
1999/—
1981/—
1989/—
—/—
—/—
—/—
—/—
—/—
1979/—
1961/—
1996/—
—/1933
—/1921
—/1914
—/1928
—/1899
1982/—
—/—
—/—
1989/—
—/1954
—/—
Eponym
Newcomb’s attraction studies
Lashley’s jumping stand
Deutsch illusion
Rotter locus of control scale
Adlerian
Luria–Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery
Hall’s theory of interpersonal zones
Terman–McNemar Test of Mental Ability
Cannon–Bard theory of emotion
Edwards’s personal preference schedule
Vygotsky test
Rosenthal effect
Rokeach value survey
Garcia effect
Gibson theory of space perception
Rumelhart–Lindsay–Norman process model
Thurston Attitude Scale
Cannon–Washburn experiment
Woodworth personal data sheet
Wundt’s emotional laws
Witkin field independence
Note. JCL ϭ journal citation list; TCL ϭ textbook citation list; SL ϭ survey list; NAS ϭ National Academy of Sciences;
APA ϭ American Psychological Association.
ated with the same name, only one is presented.
Dashes or empty cells indicate that no credit
was given for the corresponding variable.6
The logarithmic transformations applied to
frequency scores and the quantification of the
qualitative variables were procedures not used
in the originally submitted manuscript. These
procedures were recommended by a reviewer
and the editor. In the original manuscript, fre-
6
Table 4, including an alphabetical version, is available
on the World Wide Web at http://edtech.tph.wku.edu/
ϳshaggblo/Table4.htm.

10. 148
HAGGBLOOM ET AL.
quency scores (rather than logarithms) on the
JCL, TCL, and SL were converted to z scores
that were then averaged across the three lists to
produce a rank-ordered list of 219 names. The
qualitative variables were then used to “adjust”
the position of names upward or downward on
the list. We think it reflects favorably on the
present use of six separate measures of eminence that the logarithmic transformation and
quantification of the qualitative variables, a substantial change in the treatment of the data, had
almost no effect on who made the final list.
Only 10 names from the original list were replaced by new names, and 9 of those changes
occurred in positions 76 to 100. Of the original
top 25, only 5 were replaced by new names, but
those names all came from relatively high positions (26 to 44) in the original list, and only 2
of the top 10 changed. For the entire list, the
mean change in ordinal position due to the
revised analysis was 2.05 positions (SD ϭ
16.79). This is a testament to the robust nature
of the combined measures.7
Predictors of Eminence
For the 219 different psychologists on the
master list (which comprised the JCL, TCL, and
SL), the best predictors of eminence were the
qualitative variables. Of the 100 most eminent
psychologists, 28 received credit for all three
qualitative variables, and 59 received credit for
at least two qualitative variables. Only 8 made
the final list without credit for a qualitative
variable (Jensen, Wolpe, E. Loftus, Sternberg,
Plomin, Berkowitz, A. Freud, and No. 100). In
general, these individuals all had relatively high
scores on two of the three quantitative variables.
The NAS and APA variables were equally predictive, followed closely by the EP variable.
The master list contained 67 NAS members. Of
those, 53 made the most eminent list. Thus,
given that an individual on the master list was a
member of NAS, the probability of that individual being on the most eminent list was .79. That
NAS membership should be such a strong predictor of eminence is not surprising. Over
(1981) reported data suggesting that less than
one tenth of 1% of all American psychologists
are likely to be honored by election to NAS.
Having been APA president or a recipient of
the APA Distinguished Scientific Contributions
Award was an equally good predictor of emi-
nence. A total of 89 psychologists on the master
list received credit for the APA variable. Of
those, 70 made the most eminent list, a probability of .79. Simonton (1992), in presenting a
profile of the typical eminent American psychologist, noted that he or she would have almost a .50 probability of being honored by
election to the APA presidency. Although
only 32 of the 100 psychologists on our most
eminent list were elected APA president, Simonton (1992) studied eminent psychologists
who were deceased by 1967. The present most
eminent list included many contemporary psychologists who, because of the growth in number of psychologists and outstanding presidential candidates and the decreasing trend of electing academic psychologists, very likely had
much less of a chance of being elected APA
president (Simonton, 1992).
We found eponyms associated with 77 of the
219 names on the master list. Of those 77, 52
made the most eminent list, representing a predictive probability of .74. The eponym variable
is somewhat problematic because there seems
intuitively to be quite a difference between eponyms such as “Skinnerian,” “Freudian,” or
“Pavlovian,” on the one hand, and eponyms
such as “Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory” or “Newcomb’s attraction studies,” on the
other hand. Then, too, there are eponyms that
seem to be somewhere in between those extremes, for example, “Maslow’s hierarchy” and
“James–Lange theory of emotion.” As one reviewer asked, “Why don’t we say ‘Miller’s
magical number seven’ or ‘Sperry’s split-brain
studies’?”
Actually, we suspect we do use these expressions in print. However, our source for eponyms
was a list referenced by Roeckelein (1995) that
included eponyms reported by Zusne (1987).
Roeckelein constructed his list of eponyms
from the entries in 7 different dictionaries of
psychology, entries in the subject index from 30
specialty area textbooks published from 1953 to
1994, and Zusne’s book. That is a reasonably
wide net, and the eponyms listed in Table 4 are
evidently in sufficiently widespread use to have
been caught by it. Of the 52 eponyms listed in
7
A description of the original data analysis and resulting
most eminent list is available on the World Wide Web at
http://edtech.tph.wku.edu/ϳshaggblo/greatestold.htm.

11. THE 100 MOST EMINENT PSYCHOLOGISTS
Table 4, 36 (69%) appeared in two or more of
the sources used by Roeckelein (1995). The
many possible eponyms one could conceivably
associate with the remaining names appearing
in Table 4 were evidently below the threshold of
detection of the Roeckelein (1995) study. This
is simply on a par with the fact that 37 names on
the most eminent list were not on the JCL. As
noted earlier, it is unlikely they have citation
frequencies of zero; they were simply below the
threshold of detection for the JCL.
Among the quantitative variables, the best
predictors of eminence were journal citations
and the survey. The JCL contributed 63 names
to the most eminent list ( p ϭ .63), and the SL
contributed 76 (of a total of 117; p ϭ .65).
Introductory textbook citations turned out to be
the weakest predictor of eminence. The TCL
contributed only 55 (of 102) names to the most
eminent list ( p ϭ .54). We remain undecided as
to whether this informs us about the value of
textbook citation frequency as a measure of
eminence or informs us about the quality of
introductory psychology textbooks.
Bias
It was suggested to us that the measures of
eminence used in this study might have favored
American psychologists. Some measures might
also have favored those whose significant contributions occurred more toward the latter part
of the 20th century. Consider first the possibility
of temporal bias. We suggest that the qualitative
variables NAS, APA, and EP are largely free of
temporal bias. The NAS and APA variables
span the century. The NAS was established in
1863, and the first psychologist elected to NAS
membership was James McKeen Cattell in 1901
(Over, 1981). The APA Distinguished Scientific
Contributions Award dates only to 1956 and
might somewhat favor psychologists who were
most productive in the latter part of the 20th
century, but the APA presidency dates to 1892.
Moreover, some of the earliest recipients of the
APA award made significant contributions to
psychology relatively early in the century (e.g.,
Kohler, K. Spence, and Tolman). Finally, al¨
though it might sometimes take time for an
eponym to become established and used, and
over time some eponyms will fall into disuse,
the EP variable is not time dependent in any
systematic way. For the most part, it seems
149
likely that the qualitative variables would work
to partially mitigate any temporal bias that
might arise from the quantitative variables.
The JCL, TCL, and SL were based on data
collected mostly in the latter part of the century.
Prima facie, we think the JCL, despite the fact
that Freud ranked first on that list, would tend to
favor more contemporary psychologists because journal articles usually cite relatively contemporaneous works.8 On the other hand,
whereas introductory psychology textbooks do
cite contemporarily important psychologists,
they give considerable emphasis to historically
older, well-established authorities. Gorenflo and
McConnell (1991) reported that it takes about
20 years for an article to acquire the status of
a “classic” work and become consistently cited
in introductory psychology textbooks. Thus,
whereas the JCL might involve a recency bias,
the TCL might involve an offsetting historically
older bias even though it was based on relatively recent textbooks. Finally, because survey
respondents were free to name psychologists
from any part of the century, we would not
expect the SL to have a systematic temporal
bias.
One might attempt an empirical evaluation of
the JCL, TCL, and SL to determine whether any
one of them contains a disproportionate number
of names from the early, middle, or late part of
the century. However, it is not clear what the
correct proportions should be. There were relatively few “psychologists” at the beginning of
the century; today there are more than 159,000
who are members of APA and a very sizable
number more who are not members of APA. In
our view, approximately 25% of the most eminent psychologists listed in Table 4 might reasonably be said to have made their significant
research contributions during the first half of the
century. Given the growth in the number of
psychologists during the century, that figure
does not strike us as obviously disproportionate.
8
We were not aware of any empirical data to support this
assertion, so we examined the reference list of one quasirandomly selected article from each of eight different psychology journals published between 1969 and 1994. The
age of a reference was calculated by subtracting the publication year of the reference from the publication year of
the article in which it was cited. The mean age of the
141 references listed in these articles was 8.38 years
(SD ϭ 9.19). The modal age was 4 years.

12. 150
HAGGBLOOM ET AL.
Much more problematic is the extent to
which the most eminent list has an American
and English-language bias. This is difficult to
evaluate because contemporary psychology is
so dominated by Americans (Simonton, 1992).
Nevertheless, our sources were all essentially
American sources. Although the NAS variable
included foreign associates (e.g., Broadbent,
Milner, and Piaget), and non-American psychologists have received the APA Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award, it
seems likely that such recognition would be
disproportionately conferred upon American
psychologists. Moreover, we used American
journals and textbooks, and we essentially surveyed American psychologists. Although all of
these sources contributed non-American names,
and non-American names do appear in the most
eminent list, the variables we used are nevertheless likely to have favored American psychologists. Only the eponym variable seems
somewhat neutral with respect to nationality,
but even there our sources were American products. Thus, the most eminent list reported here is
probably somewhat biased in favor of American
psychologists.
Comparisons With Other Studies and
Measures of Eminence
The most eminent list reported here, for the
most part, included the names of psychologists
other studies and measures have identified as
among the most eminent. Annin et al. (1968),
for example, assembled a list of names of
some 1,040 people they judged to be important
to the history of psychology from 1600 to 1967.
Excluded from the list were any psychologists
still living in 1967. Nine psychologists then
rated each name on a scale of 1 to 3. A score
of 1 indicated that the juror recognized the name
but could not specify the person’s contribution
to psychology. A score of 2 meant that the juror
was at least somewhat familiar with the person’s contribution. A score of 3 was given if, in
the juror’s opinion, the person was “of such
distinction that his name should surely be included in a list of the 500 most important psychologists since 1600 and not living” (Annin et
al., 1968, p. 304). A total score for each name
was calculated by summing scores across jurors. The total scores were used to construct a
list of 538 important contributors to psychology
arranged into rank-ordered categories. Names in
the highest category all received a total score
of 27 (i.e., 3 points from each of the nine
jurors). Names in the next category received 26
points, and so on.
Of the names on the Annin et al. (1968)
list, 21 appear on the most eminent list reported
here, and 17 of those 21 were in the top category of the Annin et al. list, a category with a
total of 53 names. If one removes from the top
category of the Annin et al. list the names of
individuals not generally considered to be psychologists (e.g., Charles Darwin, Rene Des´
cartes, and David Hume) and the names of
psychologists whose contributions were not
made in the 20th century (e.g., Gustav Fechner
and Johann Herbart), roughly one half of the
remaining names appear on the most eminent
list reported here.
Coan and Zagona (1962) asked experts
(mostly teachers of history of psychology) to
rate 142 candidate psychologists according to
“importance of contributions to psychological
theory” (p. 316). They reported a list of the 75
most highly rated. They also reported a list
of 54 that comprised the top 50 overall and the
top 10 in each of nine decades from 1880 –1889
to 1950 –1959. After removal of non-20th-century psychologists, our list captured 47% of
their top 75 and 58% of the list of 54.
We think this degree of agreement between
our 100 most eminent list (Table 4) and (a) the
top category of 53 names in the Annin et al.
(1968) list and (b) the two lists reported by
Coan and Zagona (1962) is actually quite good.
All three lists were based on a single measure of
eminence, expert ratings, and were compiled in
the 1960s. The proportion of 20th-century psychologists in each of these three lists appearing
in Table 4 is about the same as the proportion of
names in Table 4 contributed by any one of the
variables used here. Moreover, there has been a
third of a century of psychology since those lists
were compiled.
Korn et al. (1991) surveyed historians of psychology and psychology department chairs, asking both groups to list the most important psychologists of all time and the most important
contemporary psychologists. They reported four
short (9 to 11 names) rank-ordered lists of the
most important psychologists: historian all time,
historian contemporary, department chair all
time, and department chair contemporary. Only

13. THE 100 MOST EMINENT PSYCHOLOGISTS
three 20th-century psychologists on the Korn et
al. lists are not on the most eminent list reported
in Table 4 here. The least agreement was with
the historian all time list, which included Binet
and Ebbinghaus, neither of whom appear
among the names in Table 4 (both, however, did
appear in the SL). All of the 20th-century psychologists’ names on the historian contemporary and department chair all time lists appear in
Table 4, and only one name (Rescorla) on the
department chair contemporary list is not included in Table 4. Thus, we identified as among
the most eminent virtually all of the psychologists identified by Korn et al.
Moore and Seberhagen (cited in Myers,
1970) asked department chairs to name, in rank
order, the 10 most influential contemporary psychologists and the 10 most influential from any
time period. Myers (1970) presented the resulting two lists of the top 10 names. All but one
20th-century psychologist (Binet) on those lists
appeared in our most eminent list. To the best of
our knowledge, nine psychologists have been
awarded the National Medal of Science: Anne
Anastasi, William Estes, Eleanor Gibson,
George Miller, Neal Miller, Herbert Simon,
Roger Shepard, B. F. Skinner, and Roger
Sperry. All except Anastasi (who made the SL)
appear in Table 4 here.
The preceding comparisons with other studies and measures of eminence are not intended
to be exhaustive. Rather, they show that our
approach to measuring eminence in psychology resulted in a most eminent list that very
likely includes the vast majority of psychologists who should be on such a list. Bear in
mind that, in relation to the very large number
of 20th-century psychologists, our most eminent list is a very short list and necessarily
omits many truly eminent psychologists. We
would argue, for example, that psychologists
who meet our NAS or APA criteria but do not
appear in our most eminent list are nevertheless very eminent psychologists, but they may
not be among the 100 most eminent (or, of
course, a psychologist may be No. 100 and
not reported here). Does our most eminent list
include some false positives? We think it very
likely does, but because a specific case is far
from obvious, we are reluctant to speculate on
this point.
151
Applications
As stated earlier, we believe that the most
eminent list reported here will be of considerable interest to the psychological community.
Beyond that, the list has much potential for use
in studies in the psychology of science, in historical studies of 20th-century psychology, and
in the psychology classroom. Just a few of the
possibilities are described subsequently.
Simonton (1992) described characteristics of
the typical eminent American psychologist.
How general is that characterization of eminence? Would a similar characterization emerge
from an analysis of the present most eminent
list? What distinguishes the roughly one half of
the psychologists in NAS who are on the most
eminent list from the remainder who are not? It
would be informative to know whether these
two groups can be distinguished on the basis of
the dimensions of theoretical orientation used
by Simonton (2000).
The psychology of science review article by
Feist and Gorman (1998) is also a rich source of
questions that could be asked about the psychologists on the most eminent list. Perhaps historians of psychology will find the most eminent
list useful for purposes such as evaluating how
psychology evolved over the century and how
different schools of thought are represented or
may have shaped the list.
Finally, teaching applications, especially for
introductory psychology and history of psychology classes, are practically limitless. For example, one could have students (a) identify the
seminal contribution(s) of one or more of the
psychologists on the list, (b) debate the relative
rankings of two psychologists, (c) develop an
argument for why a particular psychologist who
is not on the most eminent list should be (or vice
versa), or (d) write one or more biographies of
eminent psychologists. Moreover, a book of
readings comprising the seminal works of the
psychologists on the most eminent list would
make a tremendous overview of 20th-century
psychology.
References
Annin, E. L., Boring, E. G., & Watson, R. L. (1968).
Important psychologists, 1600 –1967. Journal of
the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 4, 303–
315.

14. 152
HAGGBLOOM ET AL.
Cattell, J. M. (1910). A further statistical study of
American men of science. Science, 32, 648 – 663.
A century of psychology. (1999). APA Monitor, 30,
14 –29.
Coan, R. W., & Zagona, S. V. (1962). Contemporary
ratings of psychological theorists. Psychological
Record, 12, 315–322.
Diaconis, P. (1978). Statistical problems in ESP research. Science, 201, 131–136.
Endler, N. S., Rushton, J. P., & Roediger, H. L.
(1978). Productivity and scholarly impact (citations) of British, Canadian, and U.S. departments
of psychology. American Psychologist, 33, 1064 –
1082.
Feist, G. L., & Gorman, M. E. (1998). The psychology of science: Review and integration of a nascent discipline. Review of General Psychology, 2,
3– 47.
Garfield, E. (1977, December 5). The 250 most-cited
primary authors, 1961–1975. Part 1. How the
names were selected. Current Contents, pp. 5–15.
Garfield, E. (1978, September 18). The 100 mostcited SSCI authors, 1969 –1977. 1. How the names
were selected. Current Contents, pp. 5–15.
Garfield, E. (1992, October 12). Psychology research, 1986 –1990: A citationist perspective on
the highest impact papers, institutions, and authors. Current Contents, pp. 155–165.
Gorenflo, D., & McConnell, J. (1991). The most
frequently cited journal articles and authors in introductory psychology textbooks. Teaching of Psychology, 18, 8 –12.
Kaess, W. A., & Bousfield, W. A. (1954). The use of
citations of authorities in textbooks of introductory
psychology. American Psychologist, 9, 144 –148.
Knapp, T. (1985). Who’s who in American introductory psychology textbooks: A citation study.
Teaching of Psychology, 12, 15–17.
Korn, J. H., Davis, R., & Davis, S. F. (1991). Historians’ and chairpersons’ judgements of eminence
among psychologists. American Psychologist, 46,
789 –792.
Myers, C. R. (1970). Journal citations and scientific
eminence in contemporary psychology. American
Psychologist, 25, 1041–1048.
Over, R. (1981). Affiliations of psychologists elected
to the National Academy of Sciences. American
Psychologist, 36, 744 –752.
Perlman, D. (1980). Who’s who in psychology: Endler et al.’s SSCI scores versus a textbook definition. American Psychologist, 35, 104 –106.
Roeckelein, J. E. (1972). Eponymy in psychology.
American Psychologist, 27, 657– 659.
Roeckelein, J. E. (1995). Naming in psychology:
Analyses of citation counts and eponyms. Psychological Reports, 77, 163–174.
Roeckelein, J. E. (1996). Contributions to the history
of psychology: CIV. Eminence in psychology as
measured by name counts and eponyms. Psychological Reports, 78, 243–253.
Simonton, D. K. (1992). Leaders of American psychology, 1879 –1967: Career development, creative output, and professional achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,
5–17.
Simonton, D. K. (2000). Methodological and theoretical orientation and the long-term disciplinary
impact of 54 eminent psychologists. Review of
General Psychology, 4, 13–24.
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist
views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158 –177.
Zusne, L. (1987). Eponyms in psychology: A dictionary and biographical source book. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Received March 16, 2001
Revision received September 5, 2001
Accepted September 7, 2001 Ⅲ